Prosecutors Appeal First Trial Acquittal of Busan Mayor Park Hyung-jun on Election Law Violation Charges

Busan Mayor Park Hyung-jun. Photo by Dongju Yoon doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] On the 25th, the prosecution appealed the first trial court's acquittal of Busan Mayor Park Hyung-jun, who was indicted for disseminating false information related to the '4 Major Rivers surveillance allegations' ahead of last year's Busan mayoral by-election.

On the same day, the Busan District Prosecutors' Office stated, "We have appealed the first trial court's acquittal of Busan Mayor Park Hyung-jun today on the grounds of factual misrecognition and legal misinterpretation," adding, "We will do our best to maintain the prosecution in the appellate trial."

Mayor Park was indicted on charges of disseminating false information under the Public Official Election Act after he explained in media interviews a total of 12 times that he "never ordered or received reports" regarding the '4 Major Rivers National Intelligence Service civilian surveillance order allegations' raised during the by-election in April last year.

The prosecution judged that Mayor Park made false explanations despite being involved in a report containing the National Intelligence Service's management plan for opponents of the 4 Major Rivers project, which was prepared while he was serving as the Blue House Public Relations Planning Officer in 2009, and sent him to trial in October last year.

At the first trial sentencing hearing held last month, the prosecution requested a fine of 5 million won, but on the 19th, the Busan District Court Criminal Division 6 (Presiding Judge Kim Tae-eop) acquitted Mayor Park of violating the Public Official Election Act.

The court did not recognize the evidentiary effect of the 'surveillance documents on key figures related to the 4 Major Rivers project' presented by the prosecution.

At that time, the court stated, "It is necessary to verify whether the defendant requested and received the documents, but the documents were created during the reporting process on the National Intelligence Service's internal server and the internal approval within the National Intelligence Service was not completed," adding, "Even if the National Intelligence Service recorded the Blue House Public Relations Planning Officer as the distribution destination or requester, it was only created internally and is not the original document actually delivered to the Blue House."

The court also said, "The testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses lack the capability as direct evidence or even as indirect evidence," and "They are merely repeated hearsay passed through several stages to other people."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.